H2H data updated: 2026-07-19 08:25 UTC
Mirjana Lucic-Baroni vs Emilie Loit H2H: 0-1
Emilie Loit holds a 1–0 lead over Mirjana Lucic-Baroni in their WTA head-to-head. Across 1 main-draw meeting, Emilie Loit leads 1–0 on hard courts. Most recently, Emilie Loit won the 1999 Australian Open first round 6-2 6-1.
Want to explore more matchups? Advanced rivalry search lets you browse current and historical rivalries, unbeaten records, or every matchup for a player.
CRO
Age 44
Right-Handed
181 cm / 5'11"
H2H
0
–
1
1 main draw meetings
FRA
Age 47
Left-Handed
167 cm / 5'6"
H2H Match Log
| Date | Tournament | Category | Round | Surface | Winner | Score | Loser | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 20, 1999* | Australian Open | Grand Slam | R128 | Hard | Emilie Loit | 6-2 6-1 | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Match data |
* Estimated match date where the exact historical date is unavailable.
Career Comparison
| Player | Current | Peak | Pts | Elo | W | L | Win % | GS | 1000 | Finals | 500 | 250 | Titles |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | #424 | #20 | 1,924 | 1,798 | 136 | 166 | 45.0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Emilie Loit | #161 | #27 | 1,016 | 1,780 | 162 | 180 | 47.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Career Progression by Age
Seasons are aligned by the age each player spent most of that calendar year. GS and Titles are cumulative career totals through that season.
| Age | Mirjana Lucic-Baroni | Emilie Loit | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | Yr | W-L | Win % | Rank | Elo | GS | Titles | |
| 15 | 1997 | 11–3 | 78.6% | #49 | 1,692 | 0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 16 | 1998 | 15–11 | 57.7% | #51 | 1,776 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 17 | 1999 | 11–13 | 45.8% | #48 | 1,757 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 18 | 2000 | 2–12 | 14.3% | #202 | 1,601 | 0 | 2 | 1997 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #243 | 1,498 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 2001 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #192 | 1,596 | 0 | 2 | 1998 | 3–5 | 37.5% | #96 | 1,511 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | 2002 | 1–6 | 14.3% | #203 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 | 1999 | 3–15 | 16.7% | #101 | 1,424 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 2003 | 0–2 | 0.0% | #348 | 1,526 | 0 | 2 | 2000 | 4–6 | 40.0% | #101 | 1,456 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2001 | 12–15 | 44.4% | #95 | 1,548 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2002 | 19–17 | 52.8% | #58 | 1,625 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2003 | 23–24 | 48.9% | #41 | 1,673 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | 2007 | 1–1 | 50.0% | #455 | 1,538 | 0 | 2 | 2004 | 29–20 | 59.2% | #45 | 1,651 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 2005 | 15–20 | 42.9% | #82 | 1,546 | 0 | 2 |
| 27 | 2009 | 0–1 | 0.0% | #258 | 1,519 | 0 | 2 | 2006 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #56 | 1,621 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | 2010 | 5–6 | 45.5% | #96 | 1,554 | 0 | 2 | 2007 | 26–22 | 54.2% | #43 | 1,609 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | 2011 | 8–14 | 36.4% | #129 | 1,551 | 0 | 2 | 2008 | 5–15 | 25.0% | #137 | 1,513 | 0 | 3 |
| 30 | 2012 | 7–12 | 36.8% | #105 | 1,535 | 0 | 2 | 2009 | 3–4 | 42.9% | #161 | 1,531 | 0 | 3 |
| 31 | 2013 | 8–11 | 42.1% | #110 | 1,563 | 0 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 32 | 2014 | 12–8 | 60.0% | #60 | 1,706 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 33 | 2015 | 17–26 | 39.5% | #68 | 1,657 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 34 | 2016 | 14–18 | 43.8% | #80 | 1,629 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 35 | 2017 | 20–16 | 55.6% | #32 | 1,698 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 36 | 2018 | 2–3 | 40.0% | #327 | 1,689 | 0 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |